About this Show

Book TV Encore Booknotes

Education. Encore presentations of the author-interview series.

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
Richmond, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 43

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Colorado 11, America 11, Washington 9, Us 7, California 6, L.a. 5, Karen 4, Nancy Cohen 3, Karen Sternheimer 3, Pat Buchanan 3, United States 3, Cathy 2, George Mcgovern 2, Mr. Kilmer 2, Usc 2, Suzanne 2, Limbaugh 2, Bill O'reilly 2, Romney 2, Indiana 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV Encore Booknotes    Education. Encore presentations  
   of the author-interview series.  

    April 20, 2013
    6:00 - 7:01pm EDT  

6:00pm
and loads of cash with cocaine on them. the mothers are doing drugs and the moms are physically present but they're not emotionally present. you will end up with the kid who may or may not go out and hurt other people. even though when the karen's really do care and make wrong decisions or they don't keep their eyes open because they are victims themselves. they can try as hard as they can. it's tough but it seems that the parent does play an important role in these cases. >> thank you all very much and thank you all for joining us. [applause]
6:01pm
[inaudible conversations] >> you have been watching authors deanne stillman caitlin rother and david mcconnell. we are live on the university of southern california south of downtown los angeles. as you can see it's a picture-perfect southern california day. the chamber of commerce could not have ordered a nicer day. our live coverage continues. over here on our set next to the c-span bus we are joined by beau kilmer who is one of the co-authors of this book, "marijuana legalization" what everyone needs to know. mr. kilmer is with the rand corporation.
6:02pm
mr. kilmer if you would start by making an argument for legalizing marijuana and against legalizing marijuana. >> guest: there are a number of arguments that could be made on either side. some folks who want to legalize marijuana aren't happy with the fact that there are 800,000 arrests every year for marijuana possession. they are unhappy that people are being put through the criminal system for a substance that they believe is safer than alcohol and some people argue that if you were to legalize marijuana he would be able to pass it and that would generate revenue. on the the other side lot of people have concerns about making another intoxicant legal. they look at what has happened with the alcohol and tobacco industry and they say we don't want that. they are also concerned about especially the for-profit companies. they have concerns about whether or not there should be advertising and people are concerned about what's going to happen to the price. this is very much a complex
6:03pm
debate and that is why we put the book together, for those people who haven't made decisions, made up their minds we are hoping they will read the book. >> host: as somebody who has studied this, where'd you come down on it? >> guest: i do work for rand and we are nonprofit nonpartisan research organization. our goal is really to provide information to inform policy decisions. we don't have an official policy or position on drug policy and we won't. so the book kind of walks through the different arguments about legalization. and it's interesting that at the end of the book we have 15 chapters in the book, about 150 added to the collection ranging from what is marijuana to what is thc to how would you actually tax it? i worked with three other colleagues and we work together and we all agree on the kind if content of those first 15 chapters. in the last chapter of the book we actually include our
6:04pm
opinions. we didn't plan it that we are all over the place on this. i don't want to spoil it but if you want to read my opinion it's in the back of the book. >> host: well, i read it. we will put up the phone numbers. this is "marijuana legalization" and we have divided their lives a little bit differently for this segment. pro-and anti-(202)585-3885 if you are in favor of legalizing marijuana and if you are are against it (202)585-3886 as the is the number for you to dial and the phone lines are too busy to get through you can also send beau kilmer a tweet @booktv's or twitter handle and you can make a comment on her face but dates, facebook.com/booktv. one of the angles you talk about is teenagers. >> guest: yeah. in the debate this is one of the few things that those sides agree on. those sides want to make sure that the youth aren't going to be using more marijuana. and so this is where this price
6:05pm
discussion really comes in. if you were to legalize the production of marijuana, you would really reduce the production costs. right now when somebody buys marijuana or methamphetamine or cocaine a lot of what they are doing is complicating the drug dealer and everyone else along further risk of arrest and incarceration. that goes away with legalization. you also expect there to be kind of an economies of scales. as people move away from backyards and basements there is a big industrial growth. for number of reasons like expecting the production cost to go go-go down the decisions of the state or any other jurisdiction makes about this and the decisions they make about what kind of production to allow and what to tax, that's really going to end up shaping what the retail price into aim. this is important because -- to
6:06pm
the price of this is something that both sides pay attention to. >> host: what is the current status of marijuana legalization across the country quest. >> guest: it's interesting. so, what happened in colorado and washington state in november was truly unprecedented. before then, no modern jurisdiction have ever remove the prohibition on the commercial production, distribution or possession of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. not even the netherlands. that's what's interesting. a lot of people say why can we look at the netherlands and see what they did? if you're over 18 and you walk into one of those coffee shops in amsterdam you would be able to buy 5 grams. they have an official policy of not enforcing the law against small transactions so you think about it being legal in the front door of a coffee shop. but it's still illegal to produce and to sell the marijuana to those coffee shops so it's actually illegal. so what that does is it in place the price. so where was passed in washington and colorado it would
6:07pm
allow for-profit companies to come produce and it's very different. it's just very different from other terms that gets thrown around like decriminalization. a lot of people use legalization and decriminalization interchangeably in that's incorrect. that just means lowering the penalties for possession, taking it from being a misdemeanor to a citation. when people talk about decriminalization that has nothing to do with production and distribution. that is why legalization and what happened in colorado and washington is so significant. >> host: what does it cost government, the federal government to having marijuana be illegal, enforcement and incarceration? >> guest: that's a great question. i don't know what it is for the federal government at some of the research we did in 2009 nine and 2010 when california was thinking about legalizing
6:08pm
proposition 19, before we get our analysis and did our review we found there were two estimates out there about how much money california
6:09pm
it's a small individuals that drive most of the consumption and is it's the same way with alcohol. the small number of users really are providing the proportionate amount of revenue. >> host: 17 billion. do you have any comparable stats with cigarettes and alcohol? >> guest: oh, i think for alcohol may be around 59? know i'm sure it's probably higher than that. >> host: beau kilmer is our guest, "marijuana legalization" is the topic in our lines are divided pro-and anti-and their first called comes from the pro-line from her still indiana. luke, good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon and thank you very much. haight here is my point. last august i remember mitt
6:10pm
romney saying how he was against pot and not just the integration of pot but he was against medicinal pot. he was in colorado and most people who want recreational pot voted for obama. the republicans have been talking about how they need to reach out to latinos and black people but i don't hear any of them talk about legalizing pot. also another thing is this. at the beginning of the year there was about 15 minutes on c-span and you had a man on that was pro and then you had a man on, a republican congressman from the heritage foundation again that was against pot, the legalization of pot. it was the same thing like today. i heard earlier on talking about
6:11pm
how there are for limited government and yet these guys come out against legalized pot. >> host: thanks for your comments. we will get an answer from beau kilmer. >> guest: no, if you look at the latest polls a study done by pew that got a lot of attention a couple of weeks ago and it came out that 52% of the respondents approved of legalizing marijuana use. there has been a big change over time. there was another poll, gallup organization doing the same poll over time and we know that in the mid-90s if you look when people ask the question do you -- google will legalizing marijuana use. there's a big change in public opinion. part of it is just a change in
6:12pm
demographics. we know that younger voters tend to be more supportive of marijuana legalization. those in the last gallup poll, those that are age 18 to 29 were twice as likely to approve of marijuana legalization depending whether they were 65 and older. >> host: edward from memphis tennessee. please go ahead. >> caller: thank you very much. my thoughts are this. do you know marijuana is not the worst thing in the world but it should not be over criminalized. i know from my own experience that the substance wasn't the worst but i knew that if i smoked it i couldn't do my next three days of my job worth a darn. the thing that really worries me is this, if commercialism gets into it who is to say what percentage of thc or whatever is in the content. that will be a whole bag of
6:13pm
worms. and i do know this, young people, if they start getting into it, they're not going to care too much about their studies or anything. maybe for older people after their 20s, established in life, little bit of recreation but you know, even though it isn't the worst thing in the world it should not be widely available. that's my thought. >> host: thank you edward. beau kilmer. >> guest: you make a really interesting point about commercialization. you know, for the other 48 states production is prohibited and then there is a lot of discussion about well do we want to treat it like alcohol? if you are decision-maker and he wants to do something different and prohibit it and the term prohibition you have a number of options. one option could be to treat it like alcohol are invited each
6:14pm
sold in stores but there is a lot of middle ground there too. one could allow nonprofit co-op to sell it and not advertise or support home growing. another option if you are thinking about doing something different would be a state monopoly where you could actually have the government kind of taken the revenue and they would also be able to control the advertising and the price and the thc content but that doesn't allow discussion in the united states because the state can't order its employee to abide by federal law. we are having these discussions about typical policies in the state but it's still all illegal under federal law and so far the federal agencies haven't come out and said how they are going to handle the situation in colorado or washington. >> host: any guesses on how many people in california have prescriptions for medical marijuana? >> guest: you know, i don't know that.
6:15pm
it's in the tens of thousands at least. >> host: is that highly restrict did? is it monitored? >> guest: no, no and it's important, they're there are only 18 or 19 states now that have allowances for medical marijuana. and these states differ in terms of what they allow, what illness they allow the medical marijuana to be used for and they also differ in how people are able to get it. the dispensaries in california and the dispensaries in colorado, they get a lot of attention but not all medical marijuana allowed dispensary. there's a lot of variation there. medical marijuana is a modern concept. >> host: beau kilmer is one of the authors of "marijuana legalization," a primer on the topic. mike is in modesto california. hi mike. >> caller: hi.
6:16pm
steve i want you to get beau's personal opinion in the end of the book. a friend of mine and i went to the l.a. shares meeting big meeting to find out what's going on. he tells a story about how the reason marijuana but to harrah one was because a certain percentage of people were -- which did not prove causality but proved getting caught for marijuana and you were screwed in your life went down the tubes including possible heroin. i know people got thrown in the hard-core l.a. county jail and one committed suicide there. anyway and the medical marijuana, regular doctors don't like scripts. there are certain specialists, i
6:17pm
know my nephew met a guy in the parking lot who decided to give them a script and a bunch of hotheads. i would like to see these anti marijuana people when their mother has got this horrible cancer and can't be, i want to see where they stand on marijuana. anyway. >> host: are you a little wound up about this topic? what is your response to that caller? >> guest: you raise the issue of whether or not marijuana is a gateway drug and we could spend 45 minutes just talking about that. the argument being that those who use, those who use cocaine and heroin, many of them did use marijuana but most the people that do use marijuana don't do want to use cocaine and they don't go want to use heroin. that said, there has been good studies done which have shown that those individuals who used marijuana are more likely to go
6:18pm
want to use other drugs and they find there's a correlation there. the caller raises a good point about with those studies you still have concerns about whether or not there may be some third factor that could be driving it so maybe it wasn't the marijuana use and that some of my colleagues have done stimulations showing there could be other explanations for this. to be honest i think the gateway argument probably gets too much attention in the legalization debate and there's also this other piece of it about you are able to separate the marijuana market will people be less likely to interact with those selling harder drugs? that's really an empirical question but if you really are concerned about how marijuana legalization could affect it aside for marijuana you would want to start thinking about alcohol. >> host: beau kilmer what about drinking and driving laws and smoking and driving was?
6:19pm
should there be restrictions against operating motor vehicles smoking marijuana? >> guest: that is what's interesting about what happened in colorado and what happened in washington state. in washington it's part of their initiative, they actually created a threshold for the amount of pcs so kind of similar to the .08 we have with alcohol. in colorado they did it. it wasn't part of the amendment. in colorado the legislature is still kind of working on a number of issues and it's unclear whether not it's in there. but this is something that they are thinking about legalizing marijuana and something they will have to grapple with. it's really in terms of coming up with a threshold to keep -- thc stays in the system for a while and it can be stored in cells so it's a hard to measure this. so i think over time it's going to be more science on this. >> host: from port arthur texas, bill was calling on our
6:20pm
anti legalization line. hi bill. >> caller: first of all i would like to thank you for having such progressive topics on your tv show. thank you very much, sir e-rate my question is what has the lansing research department and the -- [inaudible] i will hang up and take your call. i'm sorry it was about the green triangle? >> host: he hung up, sorry about that but beau kilmer he asked about the green triangle in northern california? >> guest: i think he's referring to the emerald triangle. >> host: which is what? >> guest: near humboldt county and this is where there's a lot of production. >> host: legal or not legal? >> guest: it depends. some of this for the medical market here in california and some of it is not for the medical market but there is a tremendous amount of production there. >> host: okay and is there a
6:21pm
lot of enforcement up there? >> guest: it depends. different counties have different policies about medical marijuana laws and how many plants they're going to love. it's important to distinguish between the state but there's also federal enforcement too. it's all illegal under federal law so you have federal raids in different dispensaries and federal agencies are cutting down marijuana plants in some places so what that does though is, as i mentioned before that risk of arrest and incarceration with evidence of doing is it helps, it to phrase the cost of producing the marijuana. >> host: "marijuana legalization" primer published by oxford and kathy is cathy is on the line from brooklyn new york on our prolegalization
6:22pm
line. cathy go ahead. >> caller: yes, i want to say i was in college in the 70s. even though i was a liberal my dad said no, no you can't do it. i didn't get anything from it. i decided to go off of it. i went through all kinds of horrible withdrawal. my son said why not you try marijuana and i thought well, okay i will. [inaudible] people come to your house to tell you all these lies and things. i am not worried about my lungs but it changed my life. honestly it saved my life.
6:23pm
i believe it should be legal in every state and i hope that her latest. when i think the people drinking and i know plenty of people who cannot drink. they go out and they drive. i will tell you i don't have a car anymore. we used to have four cars, all the kids and myself. [inaudible] >> host: cathy? cathy? how often do you use marijuana? >> guest: well, you know it's funny some people say it gives you anxiety attacks. i never had them before i went -- i-80 use it once in the morning with my vaporizer. if i have a panic attack early
6:24pm
in afternoon i use it but i've gotten down to once a day. anyway i just hope it becomes legal. they can tax it. it's good for the state. we need money and i think it's a good thing to control it. i'd rather have that then alcohol. i think he's wonderful and i'm very proud of the man. thank you. >> guest: there are some people that are against marijuana legalization because they are post-intoxication and there are other people that are for legalization because they are morally opposed to having the government tell them what to put in their bodies. the people are entitled to their opinions and that's fine. there are other folks that care about what's actually going to happen and especially in terms of public health and one of the things we don't realize when you are trying to do that cost benefit announces in trying to figure out whether this will be good or bad a lot is actually going to depend on how marijuana legalization influences alcohol
6:25pm
use. to the extent that we do think with legalization, if there is promotion we would expect something to go up. nobody knows how much. it's really going to depend on the details of the different regime would have marijuana use does go up what's going to happen to alcohol use? will people substitute away from alcohol and use marijuana or will they be more likely to use them together and be complementary? we know that most people that use marijuana and most people that use alcohol don't have any problems. but there are people that do have, heavy users and marijuana users that do have -- do run into problems then it creates problems for them and their families of their social cost to heavy marijuana use. we also know there are social cost to heavy drinking. those social costs are so sated with heavy alcohol is consumption really outweigh the cost with marijuana use. the question is, how is it going
6:26pm
to affect alcohol consumption and? right now we don't have a good science-based on this. we just really don't know and even if there was a consensus about whether or not there would be economic substitutes are complements, it's not entirely clear that research will be applicable post-legalization. as people are paying attention to colorado and washington and trying to figure out well haight is it a good or a bad idea, i hope they pay attention to what happens with alcohol as what? >> host: linda harper tweets in yes to marijuana and taxing. it's a lot healthier than alcohol and from our facebook page, devin schwartz asks, where does the industrial use of hemp come into the discussion? >> guest: yeah so in most states that are thinking about legalizing recreational consumption, they often think about legalizing industrial hemp as well. you see stories we have and
6:27pm
products made with industrial hemp but you can't produce a industrial hemp in the united states. most of it's coming from china or canada. if the state were to do this i think it would increase revenue. sometimes people exaggerate some of the financial benefits they are but they're definitely would be a advantage in terms of if you are a state trying to do this. >> host: our anti line from alabama. hi suzanne. >> caller: this program hasn't hit on very much about the health consequences of the use of marijuana. the pew foundation had done a study of people in the mental health field who work with substance abuse and found a far greater number of people who were not for legalizing marijuana. they have seen the effects on
6:28pm
people's brains and the damage done. people think it's not as bad as alcohol or doesn't really do anything. that's just simply not true. >> thank you, suzanne. >> guest: suzanne is a great point and i have a whole chapter in the book devoted to discussing the literature about the harms associated with marijuana use. as i said most people who use alcohol and marijuana don't have problems but it can cause serious problems for some individuals. we know that marijuana use can increase anxiety or panic attacks. it can increase the risk of traffic accidents. we knew that some people do become dependent and as i said that causes problems for them and causes problems for their families. marijuana is not a benign substance. but it will be really
6:29pm
interesting to see the states who do legalize it how they regulate it. are they going to put limits on the amount of thc that can be consumed? how are they going to tax at? all these decisions that will influence the type of marijuana they will actually consume and that will have important effects on the health effects. >> host: a quick call from rick from tuckerton new jersey. hi rape. >> caller: hello there. i smoke a lot of pot when i was in college in the early 70's. i am shocked that it hasn't been legalized but my question is, how many congressman have smoked pot and how many politicians have smoked pot and -- i will take the m.'s are off-line. >> host: beau kilmer any response to that? >> guest: i don't know. >> host: are you seeing
6:30pm
evidence that congress is switching views on this that perhaps in 10 years what are we going to be talking about? >> guest: it's really going to depend on the federal response. right now, even though washington and colorado have legalized the production and distribution and possession of marijuana we still haven't heard from the federal government about how they're going to respond. i think how the federal government response to these different federal agencies i think that's going to send a signal not only to those states but also to the other 48 and the district of columbia. but with that said even beginning with barney frank and ron paul introducing legislation, i was just at the university of oregon state law school yesterday and represented lumen hour was there talking about the bill that he and also representative paul have so there is some discussion about it.
6:31pm
>> fired remember correctly william f. buckley was a supporter of chad legalization. beau kilmer one of the co-authors of "marijuana legalization" what everyone needs to know has been our guest on booktv on c-span2. we are live at the "l.a. times" festival of the book on the campus of usc just south of downtown los angeles. we are competing with debbie reynolds over there and in another tent helicopters and lots of people. it's a really festive atmosphere and a lot of fun. as we continue our live coverage we have one more caller coming up and radio talk shows and columnist larry will be coming up in our bed right now were going back to our panel room for another author panel. this is on the culture wars. karen sternheimer, eric deggans we talk to her earlier nancy cohen who has written about the
6:32pm
politics in america. this is booktv on c-span2. >> far left, i like that term. [laughter] nancy cohen and we have eric deggans and karen sternheimer. i'm going to introduce them in a moment but i want to talk about the culture war. i sort of think about what is at? what is culture war and it turns out pretty much everything. because it is how we now frame pretty much every issue in the country and i just was startled to stop to think how did that happen? how did abortion and i have a whole list here from wikipedia, stem cell research right to die decriminalization capital punishment law and order separation of church and state. all these things are you know
6:33pm
framed as good one side or the other. we have all heard about -- so are going to talk about how we got there and what we can expect in the future. so, we will start returned reductions now. nancy back to my far left, nancy cohen is a historian journalist and author of three books on politics perishes been published in the "l.a. times" playboy rolling stone.com and other publications and a visiting fellow at occidental college and her latest book is called "delirium" how the sexual counterrevolution is polarizing america so welcome nancy. [applause] eric deggans a media critic for the "tampa bay times" does commentary for npr and writes on
6:34pm
sports media for national sports journalism center and he was named one of the most influential black americans by "ebony" magazine and this is his first book called "race-baiter" how the media wields -- [inaudible] so well, all the way from florida. [applause] last but hardly least is karen sternheimer. karen is a sociologist at usc, right here. she writes about media and society and is look is her fourth book. one of her previous books is called "celebrity culture and the american dream" start a men's social mobility. she has been or been or is a country pitcher huffington posts "new york times" l.a. times and other publications. welcome, karen. and her current book is called connecting social problems and popular culture, why media is not the answer. [applause]
6:35pm
i'm working backwards here. i forgot to tell you, please silencer cell phones during this session and following the panel there will be a book signing and a book signing for this panel is located at the signing area one. it's on the map. i'm not entirely sure where it is but that is where the signing will be. you are not allowed to record the session. okay, before we get started i thought we would read some excerpts from each book and i really recommend them all. my own book which we will talk about that and there's a lot of overlap here. "race-baiter" the feminist culture revolution and the role of media is driving everything. in eric's book, early in the book he says, his basic premise is that media is very niche
6:36pm
these days. it's very targeted at certain audiences and the rights today's fastest-growing media flap forms focuses on smaller segments of the audience. fragmented viewing reading and listening public. one way to ensure that those audience segments develop fierce loyalty is to feed the messages demonizing other groups who might gather there. it may sound cynical but that culture hates cells. and in nancy's book, "delirium" how the sexual revolution help polarize america it's a fascinating book and she actually takes you back to 1972. how many of you remember the presidential campaign from 1972? okay, well she actually is giving us a history of sort of the backlash to a lot of issues
6:37pm
and this is what she calls a special revolution peer she quotes in 1972 george meade who is the ahead of the afl-cio who is very much against george mcgovern who was then the presidential nominee who died this past year. there was a great deal of alarm about george mcgovern opening the door to and blacks. she quotes him as saying in the 1972 convention in miami, we listened to the and people the people who want to legalize marriages between boys and boys in marriages between girls and girls and we heard from the abortionists and the people that look like -- [inaudible] how we are talking now about the same issues, and finally with karen's book it was very interesting because we always like to blame the media for so
6:38pm
many things. it's always the media's fault perpetuating immoral things. in her book, she talks about how we have to think about the influence of media on young people. this is something we worry about. and she has a section in a book where she talks about the whole notion of childhood and how that came about. so she says in her book she's talking about how we created the concept of childhood and adolescence after the great depression. apparently before the depression there were only adults. after the depression we had leisure time and we were more relaxed. she writes, the high school led to the creation and growth of a huge culture. young people music grew more reclaims semblance to their peers in appearance. parents complain that young people wasted their time listening to music and were not as subjective as prior.
6:39pm
this is particularly true prior to world war ii when economic prosperity massmarketing created what it meant to be a child, a teenager and an adult. she goes on to say that now we are so afraid of what the media does to young minds. so, that's my introduction to you all. so we can just open it up and anyone of you can start and perhaps talk a little bit about the scope of your book and what you are trying to get at. any volunteers? >> i can start. okay. basically the premise of this book is that i think a lot of people's view of the media has not kept pace with the actual form of media. our view of how media outlets have become successful as they
6:40pm
get the biggest audience and that was true five years ago or 10 years ago but now the way the media become successful as they focus on the biggest, small niche is and they super serve that audience. i call it the tyranny of the broad niche. so if you are central you are focused on young white males. if you are lifetime, tha -- for middle-aged women. every cable channel and media platform and has their audience that they are super serving but there are some platforms that use prejudice and stereotypes and outright racism to draw an audience and keep that audience from going to other platforms. so "fox news" channel to use one example doesn't just say that we are the best at covering news. they say the other outlets will lie to you. they are literally biased. they are corrupt and in that way they try to insulate them bring in their audience and keep that audience from migrating to other
6:41pm
platforms. i always tell people when i give lectures if you want to understand 95% of what happens in media someone is losing money or someone is making money. so look at where the moneymaking potential and the imperative of media and you understand why prejudice and stereotypes take the lens. >> i look at media and a different way whereas you are looking more at news media or what passes for news media. one of the things i look at them my work is fierce that we have about the media and i think what is especially relevant for our topic on culture wars is that culture wars are often flawed on the backs of children. the things that are allegedly harmful to children kind of amp up this sense that we are fighting a battle between good and evil. what i have looked at in my work is how the media itself and i don't necessarily mean the news media but whether it's video
6:42pm
games, television, news historically, now we are seeing more concerns about texting and other social networking that somehow it is this new form of the media that are in some ways corrupting not just children but our culture more generally. as erin read from my book, one of the things that i write about and think a lot about is what has really changed and especially the last century is what we expect the experience of childhood to be like. certainly there were people who are called children 100 years ago but we wouldn't have expected them to stay in school for very long. if they would have gone to school say beyond the eighth grade that would be somewhat exceptional and we also especially in large cities would have expected children to experience things like i don't know, state prostitutes in public paces -- places. we would expect that they would be a witness to death, perhaps in her home, perhaps with a
6:43pm
sibling. these culture wars we hear a lot about and many that erin listed are kind of characterizing things that are harmful to children. i think that is really what amps up the adrenaline for people if they choose to take aside in the so-called wars. >>ust want to add that the counterculture wars are the element of religion and christianity which again are a big topic these days. >> hi. so i am here and on the sex, and women beat. not much on the media. there is a lot of overlap like i said. >> i want to take us back briefly to a year ago in midst of the election. remember the earth control panic with aspirin between the knees as contraception, transvaginal
6:44pm
probes and the summer came along and we are told by a number of republican senate candidates that women didn't get pregnant from rape that is if it was a legitimate rape and of the senate candidate in indiana, no of course women can get pregnant from rape but god intended that. so i don't know ladies if anybody else felt like it was getting really crowded down there around the time of the election. [laughter] everybody agreed that this was insane, delirium, right? millions of people were unemployed. we will still are in afghanistan but here the worlds most world's most powerful country was debating birth control in the 21st century. so actually i think that we should thank rush limbaugh and the gop rape deny list and mitt romney who could never quite decide whether he supported equal pay for women or not. so basically the shadows and
6:45pm
came out of the closet for all of us to see and everybody was suitably appalled. so the election last year was supposed to be about the economy and it became an election about sex and women and gays. so the question is why? as we in los angeles know here there is always a back story. that is what my book "delirium" covers the back story of our culture wars, the back story of the politics of sex in america. the book tells the story about how a small minority of reactionaries who frankly are possessed with controlling the sex lives of other people hijacked american politics and the look as erin said takes us back to 1972 which frankly i don't remember. i am a historian and that is how i wrote about it. it takes us back for what i call the sexual counterrevolution and argues that the sexual counterrevolution, a reaction
6:46pm
against feminism and and the sexual revolution has been kind of the starring role in driving our political polarization. so you know if you want to think about kind of the mysterious and compounding episodes of our recent politics, you know, where did these clowns in the 2012 gop come from? why was bill clinton impeached over consensual sexual affair? how did george bush win the 2000 election? what did john mccain think that sarah palin would be a good vice president? [laughter] so what i argue is that it's all revealed by understanding what i call the sexual fundamentalists have taken over the republican party from bottom to top. so i feel like when you know this back story, all the sex, gays -- become clear.
6:47pm
it wasn't a distraction, it wasn't a sideshow. it reflected what the white right-wing of the republican party truly believes in truly cares about. so the way this played out in the election is in the way that many people have often assumed it would in the culture wars. probably most of you know that obama won women by 10 or 11 points but consider this. if women had split their votes equally between romney and obama, romney would have won the election by 3 million votes. so you would think that republicans would have gotten the message. actually, no. so, in ohio this week while the rest of the country is focused on what is happening in boston, the senate gop committee introduced a bill banning teachers from talking about quote gateway sexual activity and sex ed class and this is a piece of legislation that
6:48pm
includes the word erogenous zones in the legislation. there are dozens of antiabortion bills introduced since the 2012 election and they are speeding through the united states. and of course we have the gay marriage ruling coming soon. so i think the most important take away is that this anti gay antiabortion anti woman faction that has taken over the republican party is less popular than people think or you would think they are based on watching "fox news" but more powerful than the numbers warrant. i think it's 13 to 17% of the population. so, what is the fix? one of the important ways to fix this is for mainstream which the center is now culturally progressive. we know that a majority supports gay marriage and we know that close to two-thirds of americans
6:49pm
do not want roe v. wade overturned. but everybody has to stay tuned in and involved because the small minority is very smart collector early and they tend to win in elections. the second things as that we want the dysfunction and the paralysis and -- paralysis in washington to end. the gop needs to turn to its roots and its roots are pro women rights and pro civil rights for african-americans and pro privacy, pro small government when it comes to personal matters. i think eventually this will happen but don't hold your breath. kind of also looking ahead, now we have had two significant wins for the democrats but i'm thinking about how do we advance, not just react? and despite women winning the election for the democrats in the senate and for obama, we
6:50pm
haven't really delivered all that much to women. so, as we see with some of the state legislation and as i talk about in my book there is a small but powerful minority that simply does not support full gender equality for women or full civil rights for all americans regardless of their sexuality and their sexual orientation and sexual identity. for some reason democrats have not been democrats through this and we can put these culture wars behind us. yes, it has a lot to do with their institutions and polarization but i'm wondering if it could be that it's just not a high enough priority for the good old boys club that still dominates american politics. let me just say one more thing. i'm coming to a close. hillary recently said in one of her speeches that women's rights are the unfinished business of the 21st century. and she is absolutely right.
6:51pm
don't get me wrong, i vote for a man and i love men and i'd love a particular man who is sitting right there. i'm just wondering if it may be time for a woman president, you know? someone who we can trust to keep her eyes on the prize. >> i was going to say what strikes me about what you're saying is it feels to me like a lot of the resistance to women's rights and the threat to women's issues that you outline have become part of this picture of conservative politics that certain media outlets have made a business model. when i think about "fox news" and i think about the drudge report and i think about the daily caller and rush limbaugh's radio show and i think about this network of conservative media that has made a business out of the echoing and reinforcing this conservative
6:52pm
worldview that includes all the stuff you're talking about. on the winding it isn't just about winning politics, it's about convincing premiere radio networks and "fox news" channel and news corp. and the people on the daily caller, the people who own the drudge report that there's another way to make money or that will not make the money anymore because part of what is propping up all all of these people is this huge self-reinforcing media structure that echoes their worldview back and forth to them. >> i'm just going to jump in with a big picture question and i'm sitting here listening with great interest to all of this. i think eric and i were talking about this earlier. i forget his name. he said on the night of obama's victory there goes traditional america. >> will o'reilly, my good friend, bill o'reilly. >> your friend bill o'reilly. i would not go on the show if he asked me to come on the show. that underlies all of these
6:53pm
culture wars, doesn't it? this panic about losing a tradition of america. what is that? to use code language a lot for it but it seems to me it is driving a lot of these wars. so on one side you have, and let me just read quickly. when he ran for president in 1990 and again in 1996, he said about the culture war he said i will use the bully pulpit of the presidency of the united states the fullest extent of my power and ability to defend american traditions and the values of faith family and country for any and all direction. together we will chase the purveyors of sex and violence that beneath the rocks whence they came. so that is the battle cry. this war has on one side the pat buchanan and's in the conservative folks and by the way i think there was a counter racial revolution before there is a counter sexual issue because the whole racial issue is a very divisive issue and i wanted to speak to that.
6:54pm
but is not what's really at the heart of all of this? i know its marketing and i i knw it's know it's niche but isn't it really this fear of losing traditional america? >> i do think that is what is happening here. when you look at it, birth control was illegal 50 years ago in this country in some states. gay sex was illegal in every state terry at the supreme court didn't overturned the laws until the early 2000's. and so what i think these traditionalists or the christian right or the fundamentalists, there's lots of names for them, what they thought is it's not that they were victims. at a certain point with the civil rights movement, with the women's movement and all that movements of the 60s they lost the power to impose their vision of a traditional christian biblically-based america. the rest of us were living that
6:55pm
before that and so yes, when they say traditional america they are trying to, the stream of them are trying to oppose bureaucracy honest. >> there is a difference i think between, there are some people who are profiteering from this and then there are some people who believe this and are pressing the case. sometimes it's hard to differentiate. i would look at bill all right nick, my good friend bill o'reilly and i would say that bill seems to me more of an opportunist and then i would get glenn beck or sean hannity and they seem more like true believers. but in every case there is a worldview that has an economic component attached to it and part of -- >> and it resonates with this group. >> what you are doing is developing this audience and making them cling to you in making them loyal to you and supporting you as part of this
6:56pm
larger fight. so then you go out to speeches and you have looks at, and you have all these different ways of profiting off of this fight you are fighting but it's also the business. it's also a moneymaking opportunity. aside point out in my book bill o'reilly make something like $10 million a year just off of the "fox news" channel. we are not talking about killing lincoln or his speaking tours. this is a huge business and if you don't address the component while you're talking about the wars you are not addressing all of it. >> you can't just make money being a liberal anymore. it's not a good business model. >> i asked keith olbermann. it's not about making money. >> karen i would love for you to give us your experience with bill o'reilly and how you were prepped. >> what was interesting and if you are out there, enjoyed the experience. one of the things i thought was
6:57pm
interesting, was on the show 10 years ago was ago was the producers had coached me to fight with him. they at least gave the impression hey we are on your side and we think your argument is stronger. and so it really take a lot of eric's points that this is what i think of as the culture war industrial complex. it is a business. >> it's fear -- the theater, is it not? >> its theater and a lot of what we see is passing as public discourse is filtered through the lens of these debates. i think it's not just "fox news" that does this. it's a lot of media outlets to impart her looking at they have more viewers than we do and what do we need to do? to impose media and political questions is complex and once that is going to win in the other side is not going to win. really from my interest as a social scientist these issues are more complex than these culture war debates enable us to
6:58pm
understand and i think one thing that is very alluring, even though i think most people really don't feel like they are culture warriors with one side or the other, what makes these kinds of arguments so alluring is first of all they provide drama the time were old-fashioned soap operas are going away. they also seem to provide very easy answers for complex solutions so there are a lot of people doing research that have very significant policy implications that don't fit neatly neatly into either sidedly tend to ignore them or at least they don't get in the news because they don't fit into this paradigm that has already been created. >> what about this, what is your take quickly on the panic over losing traditional america? does that include the loss of innocence, childhood? talking about the 50s, which never really happen by the way. >> happen for a small group of people and most of them are fictional characters on
6:59pm
television. i think what is really interesting especially about the way that the culture wars are called -- childhood it's connected with what nancy and eric have been talking about the sense that there is this beautiful traditional pass that somehow we have lost and think about the children. the reality is if you look back even beyond the 1950s, there was sex and there was violence too before whoever pat robertson robertson -- i'm sorry, pat buchanan. >> i was thinking as you are talking my grandmother got married at 13. no one said oh my god there goes her child at. >> right, we had a very different view of childhood historically because we have different economic needs for young people so as expected the young people would be in the labor force as early as they could particularly when we were in an agrarian-based society. it's only after industrialization and the expansion of the middle class
7:00pm
and prosperity after world war ii that we have a we think of as the quote traditional childhood and traditional family. in course people got left out of that tradition particularly african-americans and other people of color in the jim crow not just south of the north to map. >> in my book i talk about confronting and discussing with the president of "msnbc" in 2010 about pat buchanan and him being on that channel and saying you have a guy who is essentially friendly with white separatist, friendly with white supremacists. he has written a book that says america's diversity is its downfall. why is this guy in your channel? he said zero code you know he has a point of view that we should feature. ..

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)